120 Days of Sodom, though revolting, is certainly a compelling read. As if watching a train wreck, I could not look away; I could not stop reading. The emphasis on the perpetrating characters’ hideousness—both in personality and in physical appearance—interested me, especially since the narrator frequently describes the four libertines as heroes. Their stark juxtaposition with the beautiful young boys and girls cannot be a coincidence; however, it may be nothing more than another fantasy in de Sade’s mind regarding the deflowering pure, beautiful virgins by filthy, older men. I am not an English major, but I tried to pick up on possible motifs. The clergy make many appearances in 120 Days of Sodom, though the stories of Duclos, as pedophiles and fetishists, and in the character of the Bishop, who is obviously not a good human being. I did not expect so much of the novel to be composed of stories from the storyteller, which I think was an interesting choice for the narrative. I could put up with most of the novel so far, but the consumption of feces was considerably worse than I had expected.
I found myself frequently
wondering about the purpose of the novel, and came to several possible
conclusions: it could be de Sade’s personal fantasy, a commentary on human
nature, or a sensationalist text meant to disturb, among others. I do wonder
how it reads in French, because—not to sound pretentious, or anything—having
read De Bello Gallico in two
languages, I felt that it was dreadfully boring in English, but riveting in
Latin. As with any translated text, there may be lost connotations, nuances,
jokes, or references. I will hazard a guess that reading 120 Days of Sodom in English is a step back from reading it in
French, and for that I am grateful, but I am still curious about what could
have been lost through translation.